Topic: Trust flags - page 19. (Read 12952 times)

Wrong. The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless.

See:

You are free to support or oppose flags. You support or opposition will only be relevant to yourself and any users who have included you in their own personal trust list.

---

I think in amongst all this talk about flags, everyone seems to be forgetting that red trust still exists. If theymos only wants scammer flags to be used by people who have been personally scammed, then so be it. Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.* I don't think we necessarily need to be leaving a flag for everyone, and users should, as always, be encouraged to read the trust ratings before entering in to any sort of deal, contract, or agreement.

---

*Edit: I forgot about the warning above the threads - these are also no longer linked to red trust.

OK. Got it. But support button is active for me and I'm not DT member.

Perhaps you could integrate a system, or a specific page, for DT members @theymos where they can review random flags that needs DT attention. Perhaps similar to how it is for mods when it comes to reported posts?

Just an idea, like how you can do overwatch stuff in csgo to try and catch out cheaters. Rather than having to search for threads where flags are being discussed (although one doesn't exclude the other), it would be nice to go somewhere specific and be presented with a case, a dashboard of sorts.

Seems like it would be suitable for current DT system.

---

EDIT; Forgot the word "dashboard", and spelling.

I think it should be allowed to open a scammer flag against someone without personally being a victim if:

• Victims have actually been scammed/lost money
• The accusation contains enough factual evidence

Perhaps a rule could be added that a scam accusation needs to receive an x amount of merit before being able to add a scammer flag while not being a victim, showing that accusation has received enough support from the community.

EDIT:

An accusation like this:

DT members are not mentioned in Theymos post. It is written "A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it."

I think auction templates and trade threads may need some updates with the new rules in mind along the lines of "You're supposed to pay within two days after winning, I'll ship it the next business day after paying, your bid means you agree to my terms, etc" if they don't have that yet. But yeah some clarification would be nice.


You're wrong

The trust system still works and only people in your trust network (DT by default) will count as supporters or opponents.

So this means if a person has 1000 activity they can create up to 1000 flags this year, and it resets in roughly a year from now so they can create another 1000 flags next year?

You will need support or oppose from DT members if I get the idea correct.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

Oh shit, didn't mean to step on any toes here. Just thought it was wholesome that so many people are happy with the change.

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

Yes, probably the members that are sick and tired of your trust abusing pals using red trust to silence observable instances of their lying and scamming, and enforcing double standards and different rules for their "friends".

Why don't you just stick to supporting the dox of forum treasurers than poking your brown nose in here.

Looks like the racket you campaign mangers were running with these red trusting / meriting goons is almost up.

If you start moving the goal posts to claiming they must now not have a negative score (that is NOW NOTHING TO DO WITH SCAMMING) you will be showing how far you are really willing to go to keep creaming off the best campaign manager jobs and giving the best spots to your trust abusing friends. That will be your certain demise. Sorry people here want a fair and transparent system where each member is treated equally.

Also where is that 0.5 BTC gone to?  You seem to be keeping quiet about that.

The only people crying about this change seem to be the ONLY people that have observable undeniable instances of scamming in their post histories that they can not hide now.

The new flag system is pushing towards a very transparent and observably fair system (if enforced). What's the matter don't like things being transparent and fair hhampuz??

You already admitted that you do not want to be transparent and open about the rules you selectively apply to different people to grant access or deny them entry to your shady campaigns. TRANSPARENT FAIR RULES THAT APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS - this is what this community is all about. Not shady back room deals.

If you don't like this new transparent and open flag system you are demonstrating clearly you should not be a campaign manager. Not that you have not demonstrated that previously by refusing to be transparent anyway.

1. refusing to be transparent in the selection process of your campaigns
2. supporting the doxing and bullying of a forum treasurer
3. not answering where the remaining funds went to from best mixer

stop trying to pretend you are wholesome- dirt bag.

Some users seem to be very unhappy with this change, so loathsome.

Realistically, people get excited for change - most of America's leaders get elected on the idea "Our system sucks, I'm gonna make change!" Of course there's going to be excitement whenever a change is introduced, people want to be optimistic and see a brighter future. Whether or not the change is going to be in favor of the people happy about it, that's a problem for the next election.

The change seems positive, because it further compartmentalizes the trust-system in an appropriate direction.

The semantic games are going to ensue that will attempt to keep the system as it was/has been, but give it a couple of headache filled weeks where the usual members bash their heads together until we find a middle-ground that nobody is happy about.

I stand by it. Roger Ver:

Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

You're kind of forcing their hand if you're going to intentionally go against the system and leave flags that you know are blacklist-worthy.
Do you think that's going to push the system out of existence or in a more positive direction?

The system is terrible. Other's have followed in blindly on that flag not knowing/understanding the full stupidity of the system (or just for the sake of testing - see yahoo's post) at the time. I wasn't sure of how bad the implications of it either, i.e. it's much more worse than I originally thought. Now that that has sorted (there is no support on the flag), it's all good. I'm fine with a blacklist if mr. theymos wants to. All flags created after that are fully valid; maybe only not the flag on BSV.

---

Update: Rewrite.

I'm worried for you, you're becoming a broken-record. How you feel about me, is your opinion, and anything you wrap around that won't make it any less of an opinion.
I have never scammed anyone, never had intentions to scam anyone and I have not violated any contracts (casual, written or otherwise). Nobody reasonable or knowledgeable would consider me a scammer, potential-scammer or someone that puts the other party at financial risk simply for doing business with me.


Why are you intentionally trying to get blacklisted?

No opinions. I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35. So quit crying already and grow up.